I hear "my antenna is at 3500 ft" or something like that and it is supposed
to imply it is a better site location than one that is at a lower altitude
as in "my location is only at 850 ft" (or whatever) as if that in itself was
a handicap.
I can see many factors that may make any individual site a better location
than another but not the altitude of the site.
WHY does it appear to be assumed that the site at the greatest altitude is
the better location? WHAT is the phenomenon that makes a higher altitude
for your site better STRICTLY because it is higher?
Is this the same as doing antenna work in freezing weather with a howling
wind or in a driving rain best because it will always work better than the
one that is installed on a nice day?
Tnx es 73, de Jim KG0KP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@verizon.net>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 11:21 AM
Subject: [TowerTalk] altitude
>
> Jim,
>
> I've never seen any quantitative site studies supporting altitude as a
> dominant variable, unto itself. The answer probably depends more on
> other variables than just altitude. Like...does the terrain for 1-2 miles
> gently slope down from the antenna site? Is the 3500' high site
> a wetlands?
>
> I had a simple 80m halfwave up about 85', adjacent to the
> Chesepeake Bay. 20' above sealevel. Played great.
>
> On the other hand, when K2BMI bought his place in NJ's
> Sourland Mountains, he used to say "there's rf
> up there, that never gets down to the flatlands". And,
> in fact, I heard openings from there I'd never heard before.
>
> So, unfortunately, your mileage may vary. I'd be interested
> to know if anyone is aware of such a study.
>
> n2ea
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:22:23 -0600
> From: "Jim Miller" <JimMiller@STL-OnLine.Net>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Altitude
>
> If this is too far off topic, one flame will do.
> OK, I understand the effects of and on
> 1. height of the antenna
> 2. angle of radiation
> 3. layout of the terrain in the near field
> 4. location surrounded by salt water vs. desert sand
> 5. etc.
> BUT: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE (if the same above conditions exist) whether
the
> site is located
> at 300 ft or at 800 ft or at 1500 ft or 3500 ft? WHY? Tnx es 73, de Jim
> KG0KP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|